Legislators, Public Express Concerns Over Hate Crime Consolidation Bill | CT News Junkie

HARTFORD, CT – Legislators and members of the public took turns Monday morning expressing concerns about a bill before the Judiciary Committee that is designed to consolidate Connecticut’s various hate crime provisions under one section in the state’s statutory code.

House Bill 6872, proposed in January by Gov. Ned Lamont, seeks to consolidate Connecticut’s multiple hate crime statutes – some of which were written as far back as 1880 – into one new hate crime chapter in the Connecticut General Statutes. This consolidation effort would also clarify some of the existing statutes by providing uniformity to the language used to describe protected groups and by removing the requirement under the law that a defendant must have acted “maliciously.”

The changes and consolidations were recommended by the Connecticut Hate Crimes Advisory Council, which was created by the General Assembly and tasked with increasing community awareness and reporting of hate crimes. Governor Lamont appointed the council members in June 2021.

“Technically speaking, we live in a state that doesn’t have any crimes that are actually labeled hate crimes,” said Kathryn Bare, executive assistant state’s attorney for the Division of Criminal Justice. “Instead, what we have is a patchwork quilt comprised of more than 20 separate statutory sections, spread out across multiple titles and chapters of the General Statutes. In those more than 20 sections, there lacks uniformity as to who is protected under each particular section, as well as conflicting and multiple intents.

“Complicating matters further, malicious and substantial are not defined in our statutes. And so what this causes in practice to our law enforcement community – and particularly our police partners and prosecutors across the state – is that we’re scrambling to both locate and understand these laws.”

Ronnell Higgins, commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, testified that he “strongly supports” passage of the bill.

“This bill will consolidate and strengthen the state’s existing hate crime statutes,” Higgins said. “The fragmentation of these laws across 21 sections of the General Statutes has created confusion, making it more difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors to hold offenders accountable.” He noted that “we have seen nearly a 50% rise in hate crimes since 2021” and that “there were 130 hate crimes reported so far for the first three quarters of 2024.” Higgins also pointed out that “hate crimes are not individual events. The anger, anxiety, and vulnerability ricochets across our neighborhoods and entire communities.”

Several of the legislators on the judicial committee lauded the good intentions of the bill, yet still had concerns about certain aspects of it.

Rep. Greg Howard, R-Stonington, expressed his concerns about the unintended consequences of adding mandatory minimum sentences to the bill, saying that it would encourage plea bargaining and allow “bad actors” to avoid the hate crime label.

“Committing a crime against somebody solely for who they are is a very specific level of evil,” he said. “In my opinion, in my experience, which is 23 years [as a police officer], I’m concerned that the mandatory minimums are setting up a scenario where deals will be made to avoid that. So for example, if there’s a minimum $1,000 fine, and I have a client, as a defense attorney I’d say, well, he can’t afford the fines. If you sub in something else, we’ll give you the 30 days jail, three years probation – if you sub in assault-3, because he can’t afford the fines. And that’s the only way to avoid it. Maybe the prosecutors will take that deal. And now we don’t have that conviction of the indicator of the level of evil they possess.”

Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, said that his issues with the bill stemmed from a lack of clarity in the language, especially around enhanced penalties for hate crimes committed by perpetrators wearing masks and hoods, with those terms undefined in the bill.

“It is a little disturbing to me, though, whether we’ve had a law that’s significantly the same or not, because we are in an effort of potentially voting for and passing a law that should have the meaning that we intend,” he said. “Look, I know there are hate crimes. I’ve experienced them. I’ve had some folks – in positions that should never say these things – say that I should be dragged and chained back into slavery, and many other things that make that look mild. But I do want to make sure that we get this correct.”

Members of the public who testified before the Judiciary Committee also took issue with aspects of the bill, which they argued could be used to target protesters and chill free speech.

Sohail Lokhandwalla, a resident of South Windsor, said that he was worried that some of the chants he and other protesters have engaged in at pro-Palestinian demonstrations could be misconstrued as inciting violence under the new bill.

“Some of the main points I submitted [in my testimony] against it were the vague language, which could be used as a potential weapon against fair expressions of free speech,” he said. “One of the things I highlighted was that in lines 103 through 104, the bill criminalizes the urging and advocating of individuals to commit violence. And, you know, I think this is just really not well-defined and is really loose and up to interpretation.”

Bulaong Ramiz, owner of Sol Services, LLC, which does consulting on matters of diversity, equity and inclusion, said in an interview prior to her testimony that one way to avoid language issues in future bills is to expand the kinds of contributors to bodies such as the Connecticut Hate Crimes Advisory Council.

“I know that there’s a lot of attorneys and legal folks who are at the table, and I think our state would do better having more educators and more people experienced and knowledgeable around how to increase our collective knowledge and consciousness also at those tables,” she said. “We need to engage in less punitive measures and really think about how to engage in more truth and reconciliation and education.”

Jamil Ragland writes and lives in Hartford. You can read more of his writing at www.nutmeggerdaily.com.

The views, opinions, positions, or strategies expressed by the author are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of CTNewsJunkie.com or any of the author's other employers.